Advertisement

Maxillary stability in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion treated by bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: comparison of mandible-first and maxilla-first approaches in a randomised controlled study

Published:October 12, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.10.001

      Abstract

      The maxilla-first approach has been the standard orthognathic sequence for many years, however, with the evolution of rigid internal fixation and to eliminate any errors that could be encountered during preoperative bite registration, the mandible-first approach has become an effective treatment modality for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Would the maxilla-first or mandible-first orthognathic sequence in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery result in more maxillary stability in patients with skeletal class III malocclusion? Twenty-four patients with skeletal class III malocclusion were selected from the outpatient clinic of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. Patients were randomly divided into two equal-sized groups: the maxilla-first approach (group I), and the mandible-first approach (group II). All patients underwent cone-beam computed tomography before, immediately after (P1), and 6 months after surgery (P2). Virtual planning included designing the virtual cuts and the intermediate and final splints. Both splints were three-dimensionally printed. In both approaches, hard and soft tissue landmarks were used as reference points to evaluate maxillary stability, which was calculated by subtracting P2 values from P1 values. All measures were statistically evaluated as numerical values of means and standard deviations. The differences between the radiographic measurements of the two groups were not statistically significant except for the soft tissue inclination at the nasal tip. The mandible-first approach in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery is a reliable method for achieving high maxillary stability.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Venkategowda P.R.
        • Prakash A.T.
        • Roy E.T.
        • et al.
        Stability of vertical, horizontal and angular parameters, following superior repositioning of maxilla by le fort I osteotomy: a cephalometric study.
        J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 11: ZC10-ZC14
        • Perez D.
        • Ellis III, E.
        Sequencing bimaxillary surgery: mandible first.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 69: 2217-2224
        • Posnick J.C.
        • Ricalde P.
        • Ng P.
        A modified approach to “model planning” in orthognathic surgery for patients without a reliable centric relation.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 347-356
        • Perez D.
        • Ellis III, E.
        Implications of sequencing in simultaneous maxillary and mandibular orthognathic surgery.
        Atlas Oral Maxillofacial Surg Clin N Am. 2016; 24: 45-53
        • Béziat J.L.
        • Babic B.
        • Ferreira S.
        • et al.
        Justification for the mandibular-maxillary order in bimaxillary osteotomy.
        Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2009; 110 (paper in French): 323-326
        • Borba A.M.
        • Borges A.H.
        • Cé P.S.
        • et al.
        Mandible-first sequence in bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 472-475
        • Salmen F.S.
        • de Oliveira T.F.
        • Gabrielli M.A.
        • et al.
        Sequencing of bimaxillary surgery in the correction of vertical maxillary excess: retrospective study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 47: 708-714
        • Andreassen M.M.
        • Goa P.E.
        • Sjøbakk T.E.
        • et al.
        Semi-automatic segmentation from intrinsically-registered 18F-FDG-PET/MRI for treatment response assessment in a breast cancer cohort: comparison to manual DCE-MRI.
        Magma. 2020; 33: 317-328
        • Ritto F.G.
        • Ritto T.G.
        • Ribeiro D.P.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of maxillary positioning after standard and inverted orthognathic sequencing.
        Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014; 117: 567-574
        • Liebregts J.
        • Baan F.
        • van Lierop P.
        • et al.
        One-year postoperative skeletal stability of 3D planned bimaxillary osteotomies: maxilla-first versus mandible-first surgery.
        Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 3000
        • Stokbro K.
        • Liebregts J.
        • Baan F.
        • et al.
        Does mandible-first sequencing increase maxillary surgical accuracy in bimaxillary proc?.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77: 1882-1893
        • Borba A.M.
        • da Silva E.J.
        • da Silva A.L.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of orthognathic surgical outcomes using 2- and 3-dimensional landmarks - the case for apples and oranges?.
        J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 76: 1746-1752
        • Borikanphanitphaisan T.
        • Lin C.H.
        • Chen Y.A.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of mandible-first versus maxilla-first approach and of thick versus thin splints for skeletal position after two-jaw orthognathic surgery.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2021; 147: 421-431